Commit b7b5f00
committed
plans 87, 88: tighten failure-mode and CommonMark wording
Address two Copilot review points:
- plan 87: described the non-GFM render of `> [!NOTE]` as a
"silent failure", but the literal marker text is visibly
rendered — that is a visible failure. Reword to match.
- plan 88: the phrase "None are part of CommonMark, GFM, or
goldmark" was ambiguous — `[TOC]` IS valid CommonMark syntax
as a shortcut reference link. Reword to make clear that none
of the four tokens are standardized as TOC directives, while
`[TOC]` remains a valid (but differently-resolved) link
shorthand.1 parent 7c7a4d0 commit b7b5f00
2 files changed
Lines changed: 20 additions & 10 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
47 | 47 | | |
48 | 48 | | |
49 | 49 | | |
50 | | - | |
51 | | - | |
| 50 | + | |
| 51 | + | |
| 52 | + | |
| 53 | + | |
52 | 54 | | |
53 | 55 | | |
54 | 56 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
35 | 35 | | |
36 | 36 | | |
37 | 37 | | |
38 | | - | |
39 | | - | |
40 | | - | |
41 | | - | |
42 | | - | |
43 | | - | |
44 | | - | |
45 | | - | |
| 38 | + | |
| 39 | + | |
| 40 | + | |
| 41 | + | |
| 42 | + | |
| 43 | + | |
| 44 | + | |
| 45 | + | |
| 46 | + | |
| 47 | + | |
| 48 | + | |
| 49 | + | |
| 50 | + | |
| 51 | + | |
| 52 | + | |
| 53 | + | |
46 | 54 | | |
47 | 55 | | |
48 | 56 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments